September 29, 2013

Older fellow with glasses: I see that book in your taliis bag, called "Forgiveness". What is it about?

New Age Guy: It is about how you have to forgive all those people who hurt you?

Congregant: Why would you do it, if they dont ask?

New Age Guy: No, you forgive them for yourself, so you can be free. Not forgiving traps you in negativity.

Glasses: Really?

New Age Guy: Yes. It holds you back, it gives them continued power over you. When you let go, you can move forward.

Glasses: Can't you move forward without them. You can forget them, for example. Forgiving someone because you want to detach from them is kind of selfish and not sincere- no?

New Age Guy: Forgiving is always noble. It's theatrical, a grand jesture of liberation. It's a better thing to do.

Glasses: And trusting that G-d is always just is a very private step. I get it. In my book, they have to ask. for fogiveness. They can't hold you back, if you understand that it is all from Hashem and they are just His messengers. Then we are honest, I am not using them for my ends and they gain true forgiveness - through understanding.

New Age Guy, unsure: But forgiving is better.

Glasses: Doesn't sound very Jewish, Sounds outright Christian. Forgiveness only comes if it is solicited. I KNOW that I cannot forgive someone unless he apologizes, at the very least, and I better know he means it. I can say that I forgive him but that is just words and I don't really mean it. I am just being noble in my own mind and self involved. I enjoy shoving my superiority in their faces and I gain not repair but revenge.

New Age Guy: How would you know that he means the apology? May he is just unburdening himself to not be trapped himself in negativity.

Glasses: If the apology is sincere. I know what is sincere; if it is complete, if he doesn't minimize the offense and does not blame others or the cicumstances. If he is willing to compensate - then I know it is not just words.

New Age Guy: What difference does it make what you call it.

Glasses: What you call it shapes your perception of what it is. Truth is always beter than self delusion.

New Age Guy, insisting: But if you don't forgive you will always remain trapped. It's for you, not for them.

Glasses: I seee what you mean. But, may be that is not called forgiveness, May be you you do it to move on but you need to call it something else, what it really is.

September 15, 2013

Being a student used to not be easy. Not only did one have to invest many years in sitting at the feet of a Sage, often from an early age, not only was one expected to sacrifice the concerns for the self and the diversions of everyday life to the complete preoccupation with toil in Torah - one was also pressed to serve the Rebbi.

R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: All manner of service that a slave must render to his master a student must render to his teacher, except that of taking off his shoe. Raba explained: This ruling applies only to a place where he is not known, but where he is known there can be no objection. R. Ashi said: Even where he is not known the ruling applies only where he does not put on tefillin but where he puts on tefillin, he may well perform such a service. R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan. A man who deprives his student of [the privilege of] attending on him acts as if he had deprived him of [an act of] kindness, for it is said in Scripture, To him that deprives his friend of kindness. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He also deprives him of the fear of heaven, for it is said in Scripture, And he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty. (Kesuvos 96a)

What does it mean to serve a Master? Is it solely a way to advance in Torah?

It says in the Braisa at the end Avo that Torah can be gained in 48 days. Among them is shimush(service of the wise):

התורה נקנית במ"ח דברים ואלו הן...בשמוש חכמים

Rashi says::

שדוחק ונכנס בכל מקום לשמוע דבריהן ולשמשן

The student must push to enter everyplace (that they teach) and serve them.

This passage elevates serving the Rabbis to the same level as learning from them. As one of the 48 ways to gain wisdom, Shimush Chachamim (serving the Sages) is on the same level as actual learning from them. That is the utility of this Service. There is also a mItzva it it.

In fact, as a Mitzva, serving is greater than learning. serving is greater than learning.RI of KURVEILLE (quoted in Tosfos, Kesuvos 17a, DH Mevatlin) says that even though one must be stop Torah study in order to perform the Mitzvah of burying the dead, "Shimush Talmidei Chachamim" overrides burying the dead (even a "Mes Mitzvah"). The service of the Torah is greater thanits study( Brochos 17b)!

There are many stories in the Talmud of Sages who required a student to perform some personal service before they would impart a teaching to him. Serving comes before learning.

Nowadays this aspect of training for Torah greatness has been lost. Rarely will you find a young man who dedicates himself to a specific great scholar, even to the extent of attending on his everyday needs. Those who do help elderly scholars, are on the contrary, among the weaker students, the "gabbai" of a Rosh Yeshiva or a "kloiz bochur" of a Hassidic Rebbe.

This situations results in students who superficially appear devoted to their teachers, but in truth, are only connected to them as long as the students derive some benefit from their devotion. They quote them and cite them, constantly referring to : "My Rebbe said this and my Rebbe said that", but when the Rebbe asks for even a small favor, such students dissappear. As soon as the Rebbe asks them to give something in return, they flee. This is how R. Yechiel Weinberg describes such students: "... there are students who are devoted to their teachers, who warm to their light and feel deep gratitude towards them. However, this feeling lasts only when it does not carry any practical obligation (see here, p.118)."

Why has such a situation arisen? It might have something to do with the demise of the institution of the apprenticeship. In a society where one does not invest years of learning and observation to learn a craft, the concept of a learning relationship dissappears. Mentorship replaces apprenticeship. The effort and responsibility in the mentoring relationship is on the mentor and not the mentee.

More importantly, it is because of the rarity of the authentic appreciation that one must give in order to receive.

Rebbe Rashab writes in the maaamar Mikne Rav and Ele Hadevorim (Reish Samekh Vov) that there are two kinds of servants: a servant that serves from Awe and Fear and one who serves from Love. In addition, there is a Son, who serves his Father by giving, because due to the great similarity that he sees to himsef in his father, he gives selflessly and without boundary.

"You should teach your sons"- these are the students (Sifrei to Deut. 6:7 and Rashi ibid).

We now understand the purpose and the nature and absolute necessity for Shimusha shel Torah! A student who gives to his Teacher establishes a true bilateral relationship. Not so one who only takes. Taking makes people uncomfortable, for it imposes a subtle obligation to reciprocate. People resent being in debt and under an obligation to another ( Rav Dessler, Kuntress Hachesed, Giving and Taking, Michtav M'Eliahu vol. 1). A student cannot have a full and open relationship with a Rebbe when the student resents the Rebbe. This concept underlies the chassidic concept of Hiskashrus. The chossid does something for the Rebbe; for example, in Lubavitch he goes on Shelichus, because it will please the latter. This connects them.

One cannot be a taker in Torah study. To take from the Rebbe, no matter how desirous he might be of imparting knowledge (more than the calf wants to suckle, the cow wants to nurse (Pesachim112a)), is not the way in which Torah will be imparted. First give, then take. WIth their great insight into human psyche, the sages taught is this message. A student must first and always give. Only giving will bind him to his teacher. Taking creates distance, giving produces a connection. A student must establish a connection, not a selfish connection based on his own need, but a selfless devotion based on giving. Only then will Torah effortlessly spill over from the teacher to the pupil and take up a position within his heart.

WIth Hashem's help, I intend to return to a more regular schedule of posting. I apologize for the prolonged furlough and hope that you will find what I post to be useful, and above all, educational and uplifting.

March 31, 2013

From this, I know only concerning two individuals; how do I know that even a single individual who sits and occupies himself with the Torah, G-d designates reward for him? From the verse, "He sits alone in meditative stillness; indeed, he receives [reward] for it" (Lamentations 3:28).

Now we shift our focus to an individual. In the previous part of the mishna the focus had been on how Divine Presence rests within a group - ten, even three, even two. Divine presence is not possible outside of a group. But even one person can still avail himself of the Divine Experience - but only through the Torah. It is not Shechina but there is a reward. Learning alone is far from ideal.

He who sits alone does not connect with Hashem, for by definition, loneliness is loneliness.

The simple meaning of this verse in Lamentations is that one who suffers should sit in silence and contain the pain which G-d placed upon him. Certainly R, Chanina ben Teradyon knew what it is to be in pain. He had a learned son and a learned daughter, Beruriah. It is related that Simon ben Haninah asked this son a Torah question and, and that the latter and his sister Bruriah, both provided different answers to it. When R.Yudah ben Bava heard of those opinions, he remarked, "Chaninah's daughter teaches better than his son" (Tosefta, Kelim, Bava Kama iv. 17). This son went off the derech and became a bandit. He betrayed his criminal associates, wherefore they killed him and filled his mouth with sand and gravel. Having discovered his remains, the people would have eulogized him out of respect for his father, but the latter would not permit it. "I myself shall speak," said he; and he did, quoting Proverbs 5:11. The mother quoted Proverbs 17:25; the sister, - 20:17 (Eicha Rabba iii. 16; Semachot xii.)

As in his life, so also in his death, R, Chanania ben Teradyon strove mightily that Torah should be studied in public. He lived what he preached here in Avos.

Hadrian imposed a death penalty of those who taught Torah. In response, R. Chananya ben Teradyon convened public assemblies and taught Torah.

For this he and his wife were condemned to death, and their daughter to degradation. His death was terrible. Wrapped in the scroll, he was placed on a pyre of green brush; fire was set to it, and wet wool was placed on his chest to prolong the agonies of death. "Woe is me," cried his daughter, "that I should see thee under such terrible circumstances!" Haninah serenely replied, "I should indeed despair were I alone burned; but since the scroll of the Torah is burning with me, the Power that will avenge the offense against the law will also avenge the offense against me."

His heartbroken disciples then asked: "Master, what seest thou?" He answered: "I see the parchment burning while the letters of the Law soar upward."

"Open then thy mouth, that the fire may enter and the sooner put an end to your sufferings," advised his pupils. But Haninah replied, "It is best that He who hath given the soul should also take it away: no man may hasten his death." Thereupon the executioner removed the wool and fanned the flame, thus accelerating the end, and then himself plunged into the flames (Avodah Zarah 17b, see also Sifre, Deut. 307).

The simple meaning of the verse in Lamnetation that is quoted here in Avos is that one who suffers must accept the decree that G-d places on him in silence. That is not how R. Chanaya ben Teradyon understood the verse. Instead he saw it as prescribing a reward even for one who studies Torah alone. But in truth, Torah must be studied in public, not alone. This is so important that it must be done even in the time of persecution. When he was captured and put to death, R. Chananya did not just accept his suffering in silence; her justified Hashem's design.

On hearing his sentence, he quoted Deuteronomy 32:4, "He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment"; while his wife quoted , "A God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he"; and his daughter cited Yirmiahu 32:19, "Great in counsel, and mighty in work; for Thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings" (Sifre, Deut. 307; Avodah Zarah loc. cit)

March 03, 2013

But two who sit and exchange words of Torah, the Divine Presence rests amongst them, as is stated, "Then the G-d-fearing conversed with one another, and G-d listened and heard; and it was inscribed before Him in a book of remembrance for those who fear G-d and give thought to His name" (Malachi 3:16).

In the first part of the mishna, two indviduals were united by silence and mutual rejection. In this part, they are united through conversation. But they are not only united, the Divine Presence rests among them.

How does this work? How does two become three?

Shekhina, Divine Pesence, is a mysterious concept. We do know that it is called in Kabbalistic sources, Knesses Yisroel - the gathering of Israel. A clue is that the very term Sheckhina come for the verse in Exodus 25:8, "They shal make me a sanctuary and I will dwell(shakhanti) amongst them".

There are various levels of Shekhina, from the very highest to the ones that we sense among us, all really one and the same(See the beginning of Maamar Bosi L'Gani). The godliness that exists among us is inseparable from the basic defining quality of humans, that we know each other as humans only through and in terms of human society and relationship. To restate it in simple but perhaps shocking terms so to say that G-d only exists in the human realm of relationship and community. If there were not a society of inter-related human beings to sense and enshrine G-d as the King and Master, Friend and Parent, Helper and Judge, there would, perhaps be no Hashem in this world, except as distant Cause.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it really fall? Had there been no humans, would there be G-d (at least in the terms that we understand and perceive him)?

This is what He wanted. "G-d desired to have a dwelling place in the lower worlds (Dira B'Tachtonim( Tanchuma Pikudei2)".

When two individuals share disdain and rejection, they are united by negatvity. But, Hashem is not there, for that is not an interaction that humans can share with the Master of the World, because any rejection between Hashem and humans is one sided. Hashem never rejects. When two people sit and positively interact, especially when they speak of Torah (within which Hashem is enclothed through a different and distinct mechanism), Shekhina dwells among them, for godliness is an aspect of every human interaction. We are only human in as much as we relate to G-d.

February 18, 2013

Rabbi Chanina son of Tradyon would say: Two who sit and no words of Torah pass between them, this is a session of scorners, as is stated, "And in a session of scorners he did not sit" (Psalms 1:1).

As we continue to consider and weigh different kinds of belonging and not belonging, this Mishna begins to tell us us about different groups of people. We start with two people, discuss two for while and, in Mishna six proceed all the way to 10.

Perhaps as a literary technique, our first group is two who are disconnected. They sit together but do not speak to one another. Yet, they are not two individuals but a "session of scorners"(moshav leitzim), members of a group. Ruach Chaim points out that these two do not believe that there have anything to gain from a conversation, for each one considers his colleague to be so inferior in Torah as not to have anything to contribute. Paradoxically, in their separateness they are united. By rejecting each other, they become a group of scoffers.

I remember that in my youth I did not wish to be a conformist. I would wear a dark gray hat, which was more accepted at that time than it would be now, and in this way, I thought, I was my own man. This lasted until a wise man told me that everyone belongs to group. All that I was accomplishing is to be thought of as belonging to group of nonconformists. You see that rejection can be as unifying as non-rejection.

In one way, the sages indicate to us that speech is not the only thing that connects individuals. Many things can be the glue that holds a group together. Disdain can unite as surely as respect. One who had seen dysfunctional marriages and families can certainly attest the abiding ability of negativity to unite.

However, this not only that there is no speaking between these two people at all; it is that words of Torah do not pass between them. The essence of being a Jew is being united through the Torah. To sit and not discussed Torah is unifying through rejection, but it is not in any way as good as unity through unity. Perhaps, a paradox, but a paradox with meaning.

The Mishna then goes on to show us that it is much better to be held together by Torah then by rejection of Torah.

February 12, 2013

The Jewish Educator Award is a project of the Milken Family Foundation (MFF) which established the Award as way to acknowledge the work of outstanding Jewish educators. The Award, founded in 1994, is presented to a select group of Jewish educators each year as a way of honoring them for their professional leadership, their community involvement, their efforts in support of their schools' students and families and, most of all, the high quality of their work as Jewish educators.

Lowell Milken created the Jewish Educator Award as an extension of his philosophy that a Jewish Day School education can encourage a child to develop strong Jewish values, remain faithful to his Jewish heritage and nourish the child's Jewish identity. MFF created the Award to strengthen the Jewish Day School movement while rewarding excellence in teaching. These educators, MFF notes in its overview of the Awards, work to create an exciting and engaging educational experience for Jewish students to make Judaism vibrant and meaningful in their lives.

The Award is determined based on the teacher's classroom performance, relationship with the community and with the school's families and with the community. The Award committee reviews each nominee's leadership skills as it influences the school community and its families as well as the nominee's originality of educational methods.

Recipients of the Jewish Educator's Award include individuals who are engaged in all facets of Jewish education including teachers, administrators and specialists. Since 1994 Lowell Milken and MFF has presented the Award to Jewish professional educators who represent almost 40 Jewish Day Schools nationwide. According to the Award guidelines, the Award recognizes the educator's as "role models deserving of emulation for their intelligence, scholarship, creativity and compassion."

Each year 4 educators are named as Milken Educators. To be nominated the teacher must teach in a school that is affiliated with the local Board of Jewish Education at the K-12 level. The Jewish Educator Awards are distributed to educators who teach in schools representing all streams of Judaism. Each recipient receives $15,000.

January 23, 2013

My posting had become less frequent and I apologize. Preparing and giving a Daf Yomi shiur and getting involved in anew project has taken a toll. BE"H I will slowly be able to increase postings....hope so. Thank you for being patient.

January 01, 2013

Rabbi Chanina, deputy to the kohanim, would say: Pray for the integrity of the government; for were it not for the fear of its authority, a man would swallow his neighbor alive.

The teaching of R. Chanina is interesting because he was a late Tanna, we lived just before the destruction of the Temple. By skipping more than 100 years forward to R. Chanina, the Mishna indicates to us a thematic connection between R. Akavia ben Mehallel and the teaching of R. Chanina. R. Akvia was focused on individual versus the group, but that was no longer the actual question a hundered years later. Now, the question is individual versus the government.

What happened in the decades before the destruction of the Holy Temple? Well, this was the time of increasing anarchy in the land of Israel, with the appearance of homegrown brigands and terrorists, and progressive weakening of governmental authority. At the same time, the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven, a place that was supposed to and radically better than the kingdom of this Earth, began to circulate. It is very clear from the Gospels that the radical teaching that devalued temporal authority and considered obeisance to it to be a betrayal of the Heavenly Kingdom, has gained many adherents at that time. Whereas before the Rabbis were focused on the questions of the religious meaning of individual service to God versus national destiny, the very value of earthly authority was now being questioned. Rabbi Chanina defined two different charges of earthly authority. One was to serve as a moral and ethical force. The Roman prefect never fulfilled that function. However, it was time to remind faithful Jews that the government also served as a deterrent to interpersonal and intercommunal violence. It may not be fulfilling a positive role that Shimon Hatsadik envisioned, but it was still a powerful barrier to general anarchy. That alone justified that Jews should pray even for an unrighteous government, even for one that represented and elevated values that where radically at conflict with Torah values.

December 30, 2012

Some people have a sense that it is not Jewish to pay attention to one’s physical needs and that it is more spiritual to eschew physical activity. However, that is not the case. Already R. Yochanan gave us this advice: “spend one-third of your time in sitting, one-third in standing and one-third in walking (Kesuvos 111a)”. Shabbos 147a advises exercises after a bath, which Rabbeinu Chananel explains to mean: “one bends and stretches the arms forwards and backwards as well as the legs on the haunches so one becomes perspired and warm”. Rav Sheshes said: “great is work for it makes warm those who engage in it (Gittin 67b)”. In Talmudic times Jews played a form of volleyball (Koheles Rabba12:11) and a sport in which a ball was thrown against a wall (Yerushalmi Sukkah 5). Rambam (Deyos 4: 19) advises exercize as an aid to gastrointestinal health. He prohibits exercise on Shabbos because it is a form of healing (Shabbos 21”28). He farther wrote: “For there are many things that are necessary or very useful according to some people, whereas according to others they are not at all needed; as is the case with regards to the different kinds of bodily exercise, which are necessary for the preservation of health according to the prescription of those who know the art of medicine . . . Thus those who accomplish acts of exercising their body in the wish to be healthy…. are in the opinion of the ignorant engaged in frivolous actions, whereas they are not frivolous according to the Sages." (Moreh 3, 25)

November 11, 2012

I have been pursuing a line of thought that Akavia represented a distinct school from that of Hillel and Shammia and the defining characteristic of his school was extreme individualism. With this in mind, a certain well known Talmudic passage becomes more intelligible.

Our Rabbis taught(Shabbos 31a): A certain gentile once came before Shammai and asked him: "How many Torot do you have?"

"Two," he replied: "the Written Torah and the Oral Torah."

"I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah. Make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].

Shammai scolded and rejected him in anger. When he went before Hillel, Hillel accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, Hillel taught him, "Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet." The following day Hillel reversed the letters.

"But yesterday you did not teach them to me like this," he protested.

"Must you then not rely upon me? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral Torah as well."

There is a Halachic problem with what Hillel did, which Rashi points out. Talmud says in Bechoros 30 that a convert who accepts all of the Torah except for one matter is not allowed to convert. How could Hillel take in a convert who did not accept the Oral Law. Rashi answers that this convert did accept the Oral Torah; he just didn't believe that it was given by Hashem. This is a kind of answer that generates volumes of discussion, and it did exactly that in the subsequent generations.

It appears to me, however, that this convert did believe in Oral Law but he did not trust either Shammai or Hillel to transmit their versions of it to him. This is why he said: "In regard to Oral Law, I don't believe you". He did not say that he did not believe in it, only that the did not believe Shammai and HIllel. He was quite an individualist and he wanted to learn it from someone like Akavia ben Mehallel.

You see from here an indication, if not a proof, that an alternative formulation of Oral Law existed in the days of Hillel and Shammai, presumably that of Akavia ben Mehallel.

It is the day after Hurricane Sandy. Most families in the neighborhood do not have electricity and men walk around with long faces and preoccupied. The Shul has power. A man walks over to me and starts a conversation. He is obviously in high spirits and joyful.

Man: Rabbi, Hashem make a real miracle for me today!

I (expecting a story about a falling tree that missed him by a few inches or something like that): Baruch Hashem, tell me what happened.

Man: You know that I was out of work for over a year.

I: Yes

Man: So, I was going to have the house go into foreclosure. I had a hearing in June, but I just got a new job and I asked them to postpone it till I got a few paychecks, and they did.

I: Great!

Man: So the hearing was supposed to be October 30th and I was going to offer them a deal, take it or leave it.

I: So what happened?

Man: They postopned it again. I am so HAPPY? I am going to pay some of my tuitions now!

I: Baruch Hashem, you should have a lot of Hatzlacha.

After he leaves, musing to myself - Ah, this is why Rachamim is the plural? Our world runs on Rachamim, which is a combination of Chesed and Gevura. So, goes it in our world. One man's loss is another man's gain.

October 28, 2012

So, Akavia ben Mehalel represented a tradition that was a parallel and an alternative to Hillel's as received by Shammaya and Avtalion, a tradition that ended with Akavia. The little that we know about Akavia's teaching does not suffice to tell us much more that it was a deeply individualistic tradition that valued truth over conformity and located the center of religious experience within the individual.

"Akavia ben (son of) Mehalalel said, consider three things and YOUll not come to sin. Know from where YOU have come, to where YOU are heading, and before Whom YOU will give justification and accounting. From where have you come: from a putrid drop (of semen); to where are you heading: to a place of dirt, worms and maggots; and before Whom will you give justification and accounting: before the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He."

Compare this centering of the Fear of Hashem within man conscience and the attitude of Rebbi, who placed it squarely with G-d. Rebbi said in the beginning of chapter 2 of Avos: "Consider three tings and you will not come to sin: The Eye that sees, the Ear that hears and all your actions are written in the book".

However, like all great truths and all disagreements for the sake of Heaven, Akaviah ben Mehallel's approach survived through Ben Azzai in the 3rd chapter of Derech Eretz Rabbah. This part of this masechta is often cited by Rishonim as the tractate "Ben Azzai" and it contains some moral reflections on the origin and destiny of man. This section is considerably older than chapters 4-11. Ben Azzai says almost the same things as Akavia but he introduces a fourth theme and subtly shifts the emphasis form the entirely man-centric focus to a man cum G-d perception that is more compatible with HIllel's overall balanced approach. He does this by first laying out Akavia's approach and then repeating it with a crucial modification that focuses on Hashem's role as the Judge.

Ben Azzai says: He who places four things before his eyes, will not ever sin. From where he came, and where he goes and Who judges him and what will be.

Form where did he come? From a place of darkness and obscurity.

From where he came? From a place of inpurity.

Where he goes? To render others impure.

From where he came? From a spolied wetness and from a place that no man can see.

Where he goes? To Sheol and Destruction in Gehenna and to be burned in fire.

Who is his Judge? His judge is not flesh and blood but the Lord of all things, before Whom there is injustice and no forgetting and partiality and no bribes.

What will be? Worms and maggots, as it says(Job 25)" even man is worm and son fo man maggots".

Several conclusions jump at me when I look at this teaching and compare it with that of Akavia.

First, Ben Azzai had two versions of Akavia's statement, both of which he listed.

Second, Akavia's statement is then reworked in such a way as to make it more balanced and include the awareness of Hashem as Judge in addition to the man-centered approach of Akavia. In this fashion, the teaching of Akavia is restated in a way that is much more balanced, more Hillel than Akavia.

Finally, we don't know whether Akvia and Ben Azzai both received a tradition that is even older than Hillel and Akavia, except that Ben Azzai wrote it down in the way that it came to him through the prism of the school of HIllel and Akavia formulated it in his own tradition, which, came to an end with him.

Where might have this tradition come from? Sfas Emes on Avos says that the three questions of Akavia ben Mehallel are the same as the three questions that Yakov warned his messengers that Eisav will ask:

1.From where do you come?

2.Where are you going?

3.Whose is are these ones before you?

He explains that these are questions which will produce the Fear of Heaven, if a Jew asks them, but depression and distancing from G-d, if it is Eisav who asks them.

This is a profound lesson. It also may be the source for the tradition that came down to us in two formulation, of Akavia ben Mehalel and Ben Azzai.

September 06, 2012

He who occupies himself in Torah, it is not possible that his neck should be thick and his body should be fat (Mivchar Peninim 1:29).

On the face of it, this is a perplexing statement. What about the famous Talmudic sages who were very heavy? R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi were very fat. R. Yochanan's and Rav Papa's were also big (but not as big( Bava Metsiah 84a). In fact, in our own day,we had Rav Simon Schwab and Rav Shlomo Freifeld who cut an imposing figure.

A commentary to Mivchar Peninim attempts to explain this by quoting a Tosafos in Taanis 7a that had the sages been more ugly, they would have been even greater. Similarly, those sages who are fat despite their fasting, would have been much heavier, had they not fasted.

This reminded me of an interesting story quoted in the biography of Rabbi Freifeld byR. Yisroel Besser. He reports that Rav Shlomo was eating schnitzel Pentecost in the when a famous biographer of Jewish figures passed by. Rabbi Freifeld humorously exclaimed: "Oy, now they will not write a biography about me. So, is it Shlomo's fault that Shlomo likes schnitzel?"

It seems to me that the mindset that scholars must be thin and pale, is no longer the prevailing one in Judaism, at least, not since the Chassidic revolation. There was a time when there operative mindset was that the weakening over the body to the strengthening of the soul. Since Avodah B'Gashmiyus" (Serving G-d through the body) displaced the idea of ascetism and weakening the body, the previous paradigm of self-denial no longer operates. That does not mean that one should not limit oneself for reasons of health or to be in balance and practice self control. However, it is no longer a virue in itself but merely a stepping stone to other achievements.

Perhaps the Talmudic sages in Bava Metziah were harbingers of the Chassidic revolution?